Re: [Epic] Net Epic

From: Jason Robinson <ewing_at_...>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 12:28:37 +0200 (EET)

On Tue, 11 Feb 1997, Michael the Liu wrote:
> >It works for me. However, once the unit on fall-back moves out of
> >range, the objective should be lost, unlike the usual procedure, in
> >which no one must remain to hold the objective.
> Why should the objective be lost? I see no reason to make a distinction
> from a unit abandoning an objective out of fear with no enemies around and a
> unit abandoning an objective knowledgebly, with no enemies around.

 Actually, don't the current rules say that a side gets vp's only
 if they are controlling an objective? Once the troops move out, the
 objective isn't controlled by anyone, and no one gets vp's. Well,
 this is how we have played.
 I still think fall backers shouldn't control objectives, or maybe
 if it's voluntary (doesn't seem like we will be using this though..).
 Fall backers, IMHO, are out of the battle as long as they are on
 the order.

        - Jason
Received on Wed Feb 12 1997 - 10:28:37 UTC